A holidaymaker hit by a falling coconut tree while lying on a sun lounger in Sri Lanka is suing her former lawyers, claiming they ruined her chance to claim £4.5m in compensation.

Claire Saywell was sunbathing at the four-star Club Hotel Dolphin resort in the western town of Waikkal in February 2017 with her husband when the 50ft coconut palm tree came down on top of her.

She said her legs had been bent backwards at the knees in a “V-shape” by the weight of the falling trunk, explaining that she had to undergo emergency surgery in the Sri Lankan capital Colombo before being flown back to her home in Sittingbourne, Kent.

Mrs Saywell, who worked as an insurance consultant, subsequently enlisted Slater and Gordon UK, a large law firm, to help her sue Tui, the travel agent she booked the trip through.

However, she is now suing the firm for £4.5m instead, alleging she lost her chance to claim compensation when they missed a deadline after serving legal documents launching her claim to the wrong email address.

The High Court heard that although Slater and Gordon UK had admitted breach of duty for having “failed to validly serve Mrs Saywell’s claim form in her personal injury claim”, the firm disputed that they owed her compensation, on the basis that she would probably have lost her case anyway.

In a preliminary hearing, Howard Elgot, for Mrs Saywell, told the judge: “This is a professional negligence claim by Mrs Saywell against her previous solicitors.

“Breach of duty by the defendant is admitted. They failed to validly serve Mrs Saywell’s claim form in her personal injury claim against Tui UK Ltd and her claim was struck out.”

He said Mrs Saywell had undergone 10 operations on her legs and had been left with “serious pain and continuing disabilities” after the accident in Sri Lanka.

He said: “She has had to give up her job as a well-paid peripatetic insurance executive and is unemployed. She requires single-storey accommodation.”

Mr Elgot had explained in his written submission: “The defendant alleges that the falling of the tree was a natural disaster caused by a sudden gust of strong winds and not influenced by any human factor and that therefore there was no want of care by the hotel or its subcontractors.”

Asking for permission to enlist an expert arborist – who had earlier looked at the evidence in the claim against Tui – to make a report about the state of the tree at the time it fell, Mr Elgot said that the expert had previously said: “It was clear that in order to secure some form of utility line, a spike and concrete had been driven into the base of the tree… this had caused rot and damage to the trunk.”

He explained that “these trees would not usually fall over in high winds, unless of course, they were already rotten”, adding that “in his view, a lay person could note the damage being done to the tree”.

Damages figure ‘highly contested’

Clare Elliot, for Slater and Gordon UK, told the judge that the planned case against Tui “didn’t exceed the 51 per cent likelihood of success”, adding that the £4.5m damages figure was also “highly contested”.

The judge said that it was “common ground”, or mutually agreed between the parties, “that the question is the chance of the claimant [having achieved] a successful settlement or success at trial.

“There is no suggestion that her prognosis has improved recently.”

The court also heard that the two sides would try to settle the case through alternative dispute resolution if possible.